Seized evidence 1 and 2 shall be confiscated by the Defendants.

From Jun. 5, 2011 to Jun. 20, 2011, the Defendants conspired with each other to borrow a non-registered game site on the 6th floor of the Daejeon U.S. building E, and installed 70 game machine, an unclassified game and speculative electronic machine, and then put in 10,000 won in the game machine and put out the number of customers in the game machine and exchange the remainder after deducting 10% from the accumulated points in cash as commission. At the same time, the Defendants engaged in the speculative act using a speculative electronic machine.

The Defendants asserted that Defendant B is a mere employee while denying the public offering. However, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence in the holding, namely, ① the purchase of the game machine by Defendant A through the proposal of Defendant B, and the commencement of the game room business, ② Defendant B actively participated in money exchange business while managing the game room, and the lease of the game room, Defendant B constitutes a co-principal, not a mere aiding and abetting but a functional control over the crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. A list of police seizure records;

1. Application of investigation reports (on-site situations, etc.) and response Acts and subordinate statutes to the result of enforcement support;

1. Defendants of relevant criminal facts: Articles 44 (1) 1 and 28 subparagraph 2 of the respective Game Industry Promotion Act, Articles 44 (1) 2 and 32 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc., Article 30 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Ordinary concurrent defendants: each of them.